If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Good. So maybe we can return to the term Elohiym vis a vis divinity at a later point.

Okay, but it will both confirm and dispell much.

BTW, it's likely helpful that your wife is a polyglot in that she can say what she wants to you without offending you if needs be.

Our relationship is much too pristine for such antics from either of us. She is free to say whatever she will, and only does so relative to our vocations and callings.

I see your point.

This means we partake qualitatively and functionally, but not innately AS divinity.

I would here have to disagree though, again, we circle back to the term "Elohiym". We shared in the Elohiym's substance from our beginning as that is the image in which we were made. We are being offered something else via Christ's sacrifice and I think that is the essence of what it is to be Elohiym.

This is the problem. Naught but God can be divine in essence. Essence is ontological, and cannot be economic. So no action (economy) can convey it.

And the substance is the underlying foundation (sub-standing) for the essence. The substance (hypostasis) is the "who-ness", whereas the essence (ousia) is the "what-ness". We have access via the "who" of Christ by the translation of our "who" into Him; not the "what" of our temporal humanity into His eternal uncreated divinity. This is what makes salvation individual rather than special (spee-cee-ahl, "species"-al).

We cannot be "essentially" God, but can be "substantially" partaking of God through Christ (as joint heir) so that there is no qualitative or functional difference for us. We don't need to be or become inherently divine to be functionally divine. The latter is what makes us utterly subordinate with God superordinate.

In this, our human essence (ousia) becomes virtually irrelevant; but our individuality (hypostasis) is conjoined in "who-ness" to the Son for all everlasting. One (glorified) flesh. We "put off" our humanity, rather than having it conjoined to God through Christ. The human ousia cannot be annihilated, so it is made qualitatively secondary to our new reality of existence as hypostatically joined to Christ.

Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
“The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

This means we partake qualitatively and functionally, but not innately AS divinity.
Naught but God can be divine in essence. Essence is ontological, and cannot be economic. So no action (economy) can convey it.

And the substance is the underlying foundation (sub-standing) for the essence. The substance (hypostasis) is the "who-ness", whereas the essence (ousia) is the "what-ness". We have access via the "who" of Christ, not the "what" of eternal uncreated divinity.

We cannot be "essentially" God, but can be "substantially" partaking of God through Christ (as joint heir) so that there is no qualitative or functional difference for us. We don't need to be or become inherently divine to be functionally divine. The latter is what makes us utterly subordinate with God superordinate.

You say Jehovah can't impart His essence. I have seen no verse that would imply He is limited in this manner or any other for that matter. Why do you believe this?

... and before we lose sight of the subject; is there a difference between His essence and of the Elohiym?

You say Jehovah can't impart His essence. I have seen no verse that would imply He is limited in this manner or any other for that matter. Why do you believe this?

... and before we lose sight of the subject; is there a difference between His essence and of the Elohiym?

Lexicography, lexicography, lexicography. Ousia is the wealth of existence as "being". A human "being" cannot become another kind of "being". This is what you're insisting - that man can become a divine being. That would mean humans would ultimately be a phantheon of gods, among other ridiculosities.

Elohiym is another consideration altogether. But man is certainly no potential pantheon in waiting.

Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
“The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

Your offerings to this site have spurred me to study the terms ousia and hypostatis in greater depth and for that I thank you. Seems the terms were virtually interchangeable even unto the formulation of the Nicene Creed until the dictates of the developing definition of The Trinity required a distinction between them some time later under the dictates of the Cappadocian Fathers . Indeed, to this day, primary reference materials such as the Strong's and others make no such distinction as is found in more modern creedal offerings.

I said all that to suggest this; I think trying to understand the promises of Christ and what it is to be “divine”, or maybe better said, “of the kingdom of heaven” from that vantage point is a mistake. A true student doesn't massage the definitions of words to fit a preconceived notion. Let the words lead you to understanding. I noticed you again ducked dealing with the term Elohiym and it's ramifications. Most Christians do. I suspect that is because most Christians came to believe what they do as a result of ingesting the offerings of others as to what the Bible means and, in so doing, have embraced beliefs that preclude considering what was actually said, verses what they were told.

You were told that you could inherit the same body Jesus has and do greater things than He. How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence? How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

Eph 2: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Your offerings to this site have spurred me to study the terms ousia and hypostatis in greater depth and for that I thank you.

Yay.

Seems the terms were virtually interchangeable even unto the formulation of the Nicene Creed until the dictates of the developing definition of The Trinity required a distinction between them some time later under the dictates of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.

Indeed, to this day, primary reference materials such as the Strong's and others make no such distinction as is found in more modern creedal offerings.

That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.

I said all that to suggest this; I think trying to understand the promises of Christ and what it is to be “divine”, or maybe better said, “of the kingdom of heaven” from that vantage point is a mistake. A true student doesn't massage the definitions of words to fit a preconceived notion. Let the words lead you to understanding. I noticed you again ducked dealing with the term Elohiym and it's ramifications. Most Christians do. I suspect that is because most Christians came to believe what they do as a result of ingesting the offerings of others as to what the Bible means and, in so doing, have embraced beliefs that preclude considering what was actually said, verses what they were told.

No, it's the inverse. I've long divested the bias most are plagued with; and I've never been one to avoid criticizing the status quo to which you refer.

Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.

You were told that you could inherit the same body Jesus has and do greater things than He.

His Body, according to His authentic humanity. The prosopon of His divinity had no body as corporeality. And "greater" means elder; not quantitatively "more", but qualitatively more according to God's goal for man as teleios ("perfect").

How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence?

I'm not. That's exousia (power). God's exousia is the source, not our innate existence. If it were our inherent "being", it would not need the source of delegation to us. Ousia is the species designation as kind. We will never be divine as a kind.

How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

By being a new "who" in Christ as a new creation, not a new "what". There's quite an extensive delineation of minutiae for Anthropology Proper to understand all this as decently and in order. We're not re-created, but resurrected unto life in Christ.

Eph 2: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

The household of God ... Elohiym.

...which is not a pantheon of divinized human beings. Huge problem. Not even subtle.

Behold, I make ALL things new.

Consider this if you will.

I have. I've done so to the point of physical death in fasting and prayer and the Word.

Man's human essence is not divinized. It's the hypostasis underlying the ousia that is translated into Christ. And that is NOW.

Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.

That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.

Yeah, I kinda felt this might be at the root of your efforts and that maybe it was your way of trying to reconcile the estranged Eastern and Western Churches, doctrinally speaking, as it concerned the notion of The Trinity. But even such a noble effort must take into account the influence both the cultures and the languages had on later Christian thought. That's why I keep circling back to the Hebrew. That's where it all went down. Though, as it concerns fleshing out the particulars of the Doctrine of the Trinity you're likely in the right neighborhood.

No, it's the inverse. I've long divested the bias most are plagued with; and I've never been one to avoid criticizing the status quo to which you refer.

Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.

Here again you point to a miniscule minority of the usage of the term to point to it's meaning. Why not gather the totality of the instances it occurs in the Bible and let their collective wisdom speak of what the word means? I know the ramifications might well be unsettling to a few previously held notions but … who cares? We're after the truth, right?

His Body, according to His authentic humanity. The prosopon of His divinity had no body as corporeality. And "greater" means elder; not quantitatively "more", but qualitatively more according to God's goal for man as teleios ("perfect").

Now you're off into a REALLY big subject (one of my favorites) but, again, you've wandered into the Hebrew if you have any hope of understanding the subject. Many of the Elohiym had bodies that could manifest and interact in both the heavenly and earthly realm. This phenomenon was memorialized in the particulars concerning the priestly robes in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel. It is also alluded to in Gen 6, the Mt. Of Transfiguration, etc. Remember Christ didn't want Mary to touch Him after He was first arisen … the woman with an issue of blood who did? A study of the terms “white robes” and “white raiment” will not be without fruit. This kind of complicates the modern notions of corporeality and that's OK … they could likely use a little dusting off anyway.

How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence?

I'm not. That's exousia (power). God's exousia is the source, not our innate existence. If it were our inherent "being", it would not need the source of delegation to us. Ousia is the species designation as kind. We will never be divine as a kind.

Okay, then to put it in terms you are comfortable with. I am suggesting the term “Elohiym” is “Ousia” in its nature. It's a species of sorts.

How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

By being a new "who" in Christ as a new creation, not a new "what". There's quite an extensive delineation of minutiae for Anthropology Proper to understand all this as decently and in order. We're not re-created, but resurrected unto life in Christ.

Man's human essence is not divinized. It's the hypostasis underlying the ousia that is translated into Christ. And that is NOW.

… Through faith, NOW, right … I'm not referring to that. I referring to what comes after. The Resurrection(s). Remember, what we have NOW is the earnest ... a down payment. Then? Our full inheritance.

Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.

That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.

Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.

Fzappa must have picked this up from me - he's the only other person I have seen call the house of God Elohim - very astute of him :-)
BTW PPS how u doin? I wonder if you could expound on your comments about the scriptures of the eastern church vs. the Latin Church. Could u give specific examples?

Hello RevTestament ... Long time away for both of us.
I'm trying to contact you. I've tried to message you, but the site says that the volume on your message board is full and you must delete some content in order to receive others. You have asked me some questions about my dream.

Fzappa must have picked this up from me - he's the only other person I have seen call the house of God Elohim - very astute of him :-)
BTW PPS how u doin? I wonder if you could expound on your comments about the scriptures of the eastern church vs. the Latin Church. Could u give specific examples?

I go back to 2003 at this joint so you might want to reconsider who is emulating who as it concerns the term "Elohim". That said I am happy for the company. So few understand exactly what Jesus promised ... and Paul ... and Peter ...

To be a member of the family of God is no small thing and yet so few understand what it is they aspire to nor what they were promised.

I go back to 2003 at this joint so you might want to reconsider who is emulating who as it concerns the term "Elohim".

Your join date says 2009...

That said I am happy for the company. So few understand exactly what Jesus promised ... and Paul ... and Peter ...

To be a member of the family of God is no small thing and yet so few understand what it is they aspire to nor what they were promised.

Ah well, t'was ever thus ..."eye hath not seen nor ear heard", etc.

If you have known this since 2003 though, I think you beat me to the punch. I didn't realize the precise connection until more recently.
The House of "God" is literally the house of Elohim Jesus said He was preparing rooms for us in. I find it sad that Athanasian Christianity have blocked themselves off from such an inheritance. I am glad I have found an ally in this revelation.

Hello RevTestament ... Long time away for both of us.
I'm trying to contact you. I've tried to message you, but the site says that the volume on your message board is full and you must delete some content in order to receive others. You have asked me some questions about my dream.

K cleared you two whole spaces
just send your reply. Don't quote our prior correspondence. I believe I also have a link to my email somewhere...

If you have known this since 2003 though, I think you beat me to the punch. I didn't realize the precise connection until more recently.
The House of "God" is literally the house of Elohim Jesus said He was preparing rooms for us in. I find it sad that Athanasian Christianity have blocked themselves off from such an inheritance. I am glad I have found an ally in this revelation.

Me and a poster named Elohim had a lot of fun with the subject back in '05 I think (BTW, I was Mateo back then). That thread is long gone. It's kinda funny but it's not ... watching peoples' heads explode when confronted with scripture on the subject. This is inevitable when what you believe is from the mouth/pen hand of a man and not the word of God. A plain reading of the subject through scriptures quickly has doctrinaires foaming at the mouth. A pity so many know not what they seek.